View Full Version : M. Spinks called out Hagler


allupnem
02-11-2012, 04:31 PM
I watched Michael Spinks defeat Oscar Rivadeneyra and in the post fight interview he called out Hagler asking him to move up so who would have won.
I believe Spinks size would have led to him taking a 15 round decision but it would have been a great fight.

wmute
02-11-2012, 05:14 PM
I watched Michael Spinks defeat Oscar Rivadeneyra and in the post fight interview he called out Hagler asking him to move up so who would have won.
I believe Spinks size would have led to him taking a 15 round decision but it would have been a great fight.

It would not have a great fight IMO. It would have been lopsided. There is a reason why Hagler did not take it. He was a small MW, and Spinks was a large LHW. I think IMDAZED had a profile pic with the two of them together at some gala event, and you could see they are completely different sizes.

Throw in as an afterthought that Spinks was the smarter fighter, and it would have been a horrible night for Marvin.

allupnem
02-11-2012, 05:22 PM
Yes Spinks had the size advantage but that doesnt mean Hagler couldnt have made it a great fight. It's not like Hagler was some so so MW Champion.

wmute
02-11-2012, 05:29 PM
LOL What does "it would not have a great fight" mean. I guess your not as smart as you think. Yes Spinks had the size advantage but that doesnt mean Hagler couldnt have made it a great fight. It's not like Hagler was some so so MW Champion.

I guess you need to learn a few more things about these fighters you are writing about.

Scott9945
02-11-2012, 05:56 PM
Every top fighter "calls out" any other fighter who can get him a good payday. Especially when you have obvious advantages like Spinks would have had against Hagler.

Most fans take post fight comments too seriously anyway.

Thread Stealer
02-11-2012, 08:29 PM
Spinks and Hagler were roughly around the same level in terms of their abilities. P4P speaking, it would be a hell of a matchup.

Straight up at 175, not really a fair matchup. Spinks handily beats him.

Sugarj
02-11-2012, 08:49 PM
Great fight or not, in todays equivalent it would mean a prime middleweight ATG Hagler jumping up two weight divisions to fight a prime ATG light heavyweight......soon to make a move up to heavyweight and beat a pretty useful version of Larry Holmes.

Hagler's chin, desire and ability will make him very game. But this is not a fight he would be likely to win.

them_apples
02-12-2012, 02:58 AM
Hagler makes it competative but loses. He wouldn't come in at 160 lbs, he'd bulk up. His stamina would suffer most likely, I see his chin and heart keeping him alive till the final bell though. I also see Hagler having his moments.

wmute
02-12-2012, 04:29 AM
Spinks and Hagler were roughly around the same level in terms of their abilities. P4P speaking, it would be a hell of a matchup.

Straight up at 175, not really a fair matchup. Spinks handily beats him.

This ^^^^^

In the history of boxing, you don't really see ATG getting close to beating ATG + another 20lbs of ATG.

And most definitely not if the bigger guy is also smarter, and the smaller guy is less mobile and more aggressive than he used to by the time the fight is staged (this fight would not be anything like Louis-Conn I)

In fact you rarely see such a fight happening. Because the smaller ATG, who usually beats everyone around his size has nothing to gain in getting all beat up and looking relatively helpless (* with rare exceptions happening with LHWs moving up to HW, because a HW title fight used to bring soooooo much money that getting beat up made more sense). Had the outcome not been so obvious, there would have been some pressure on Marvin to move up, but I don't think there was any (although when I was a little fella Marvin was like god to me, so I probably have removed anything bad said about him from my childhood memories)

wmute
02-12-2012, 04:32 AM
Hagler makes it competative but loses. He wouldn't come in at 160 lbs, he'd bulk up. His stamina would suffer most likely, I see his chin and heart keeping him alive till the final bell though. I also see Hagler having his moments.

I am enough of a Hagler believer to think he makes it to the end of the fight. The guy's chin was insane

About having his moments... I just do not see what they would look like. By 1984 he would not outbox Spinks, and well size would make it impossible to outgun him.

Tiozzo
02-12-2012, 10:39 AM
Spinks would have slapped Marvin around the ring.

mickey malone
02-13-2012, 10:17 AM
I am enough of a Hagler believer to think he makes it to the end of the fight. The guy's chin was insane

About having his moments... I just do not see what they would look like. By 1984 he would not outbox Spinks, and well size would make it impossible to outgun him.
I agree with this...

But for anyone to say it's cut & dry time for Spinks, is just wrong.. A warrior of Hagler's metal simply cannot be written off against any of the great light-heavies and if this particular match ever was mooted, i'd bet a pretty penny that it wasn't due to any reluctance from Hagler as to why it didn't happen.. Ok, Spinks had all the advantages, but even if he were 6'4'' i don't see Marvin shrivelling up like Spinks did against Tyson, and you have to remember, it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog that counts..
Not saying that Spinks loses, but winning would be far from easy in what i'd predict to be an extra tough distance fight..

Barn
02-13-2012, 01:50 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if it was on Hagler's part, it's just stupid for Spinks to even say something like that.

wmute
02-13-2012, 05:55 PM
I agree with this...

But for anyone to say it's cut & dry time for Spinks, is just wrong.. A warrior of Hagler's metal simply cannot be written off against any of the great light-heavies and if this particular match ever was mooted, i'd bet a pretty penny that it wasn't due to any reluctance from Hagler as to why it didn't happen.. Ok, Spinks had all the advantages, but even if he were 6'4'' i don't see Marvin shrivelling up like Spinks did against Tyson, and you have to remember, it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog that counts..
Not saying that Spinks loses, but winning would be far from easy in what i'd predict to be an extra tough distance fight..

well i hope Hagler's handlers finally got something right and kept him away from Spinks if he was inclined towards that matchup, but I highly doubt he was. It would have been a sure loss on the record at a time in which he was finally about to get all the big names in the ring. Would have been of the dumbest moves ever. Then again we are talking about the same team who gave away gloves, ring and rounds for the Leonard fight... so you never know.

I don't think Marvin would end up like Spinks with Tyson, but that has little to do with Hagler not being Spinks, ad a lot to do Spinks not being Tyson. Spinks was a guy who won fights no matter what, Tyson a guy who almost got people killed (Spinks >>> Tyson btw, it is just they brought different things to the ring).

Hagler certainly had the freakish skull and endurance to make it to the end of the 15th, but he would be in horrible shape by then.

Barn
02-13-2012, 05:57 PM
well i hope Hagler's handlers finally got something right and kept him away from Spinks if he was inclined towards that matchup, but I highly doubt he was. It would have been a sure loss on the record at a time in which he was finally about to get all the big names in the ring. Would have been of the dumbest moves ever. Then again we are talking about the same team who gave away gloves, ring and rounds for the Leonard fight... so you never know.

I don't think Marvin would end up like Spinks with Tyson, but that has little to do with Hagler not being Spinks, ad a lot to do Spinks not being Tyson. Spinks was a guy who won fights no matter what, Tyson a guy who almost got people killed (Spinks >>> Tyson btw, it is just they brought different things to the ring).

Hagler certainly had the freakish skull and endurance to make it to the end of the 15th, but he would be in horrible shape by then.
Did you think Leonard had a chance for the Hagler fight?

80schamps
02-13-2012, 08:26 PM
Here's one for yas,how would hagler have done,moving up and facing a larger stronger more filled out Hearns.

Scott9945
02-14-2012, 12:04 AM
Here's one for yas,how would hagler have done,moving up and facing a larger stronger more filled out Hearns.

I'd pick Marvin everytime.

wmute
02-14-2012, 04:09 AM
Did you think Leonard had a chance for the Hagler fight?

Lol... let me give you the picture

1) I was 9yo.

2) I was the biggest Hagler fan in a few miles radius.

3) At the time I thought the Mugabi fight was a great performance showcasing the best possible Marvin (destruct and destroy is a powerful mantra for a 9yo...)

4) I was not even aware you could pick gloves and ring, and i thought rounds didn't matter.

you draw your conclusions...

Looking back I would give Leonard some chance, but at the end of the day, no one could foresee Hagler throwing away the first few rounds like that, which is ultimately what won Leonard the fight.

wmute
02-14-2012, 04:27 AM
Here's one for yas,how would hagler have done,moving up and facing a larger stronger more filled out Hearns.

Well, to be honest. Spinks is a lot more than that. If compared to the Hitman, Spinks hits only slightly less harder (in a p4p sense, and much harder in real terms), much better chin and stamina, and what's important, an incomparably higher boxing IQ.

Sugarj
02-14-2012, 06:12 AM
Well, to be honest. Spinks is a lot more than that. If compared to the Hitman, Spinks hits only slightly less harder (in a p4p sense, and much harder in real terms), much better chin and stamina, and what's important, an incomparably higher boxing IQ.

I'm not sure about boxing IQ, its close. But I agree for the most part with everything else.

Michael Spinks is widely believed to be one of the best light heavyweights ever, possibly top 5. Hearns above super middleweight doesn't come close.

Barn
02-14-2012, 11:40 AM
Lol... let me give you the picture

1) I was 9yo.

2) I was the biggest Hagler fan in a few miles radius.

3) At the time I thought the Mugabi fight was a great performance showcasing the best possible Marvin (destruct and destroy is a powerful mantra for a 9yo...)

4) I was not even aware you could pick gloves and ring, and i thought rounds didn't matter.

you draw your conclusions...

Looking back I would give Leonard some chance, but at the end of the day, no one could foresee Hagler throwing away the first few rounds like that, which is ultimately what won Leonard the fight.
Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.

You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

wmute
02-14-2012, 12:31 PM
Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.

You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

First Antuofermo fight (forget the scores) Hagler could have done a lot better. (given the scores he also should have)

wmute
02-14-2012, 12:34 PM
Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.

You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

The Mugabi fight. How much punishment from a murderous puncher did he basically choose to withstand in that fight?

Barn
02-14-2012, 12:37 PM
First Antuofermo fight (forget the scores) Hagler could have done a lot better. (given the scores he also should have)
He won it by like 6 points on my card. Not his fault.

As for Mugabi, I reckon he knew his reflexes were going and thought the best way to win was to slug it out. He did and he won.

wmute
02-14-2012, 12:37 PM
Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.


Well Leonard fought a great fight, but I think switching to orthodox was entirely on Hagler, but I read all those SRL interviews a long time ago so I might have missed something.


You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

Can you reexpress yourself here? What am I basing on what?

BTW it is not that Hagler is some dumb Margarito type of fighter, just fighters like SRL or Spinks had a much higher ring IQ, but it is ok, because we are talking ATG here...

wmute
02-14-2012, 12:42 PM
He won it by like 6 points on my card. Not his fault.

As for Mugabi, I reckon he knew his reflexes were going and thought the best way to win was to slug it out. He did and he won.

you are entitled to your own opinions of course.

I had it a close fight.

With Mugabi he also chose to move very little. Stamina did not leave him yet I think.

wmute
02-14-2012, 01:31 PM
I'm not sure about boxing IQ, its close. But I agree for the most part with everything else.

Michael Spinks is widely believed to be one of the best light heavyweights ever, possibly top 5. Hearns above super middleweight doesn't come close.

I think boxing IQ is not close at all. Spinks was much better than Hearns (or Hagler for the matter) at adapting and at making the other guy fight his fight. Hearns was often dragged in his opponent's fight. To me that sums it up. Don't ge me wrong... Hearns boxed beautifully, but those I call skills not boxing IQ.

I find it hard to rate Spinks outside the top 5 at 175, he dominated one of the toughest LHW divisions of all time, beating everyone in it except Saad Muhammad, (who was on the way down by 82 or so), unified the belts in the process. Put a cherry on top by beating a great HW champion in Larry Holmes.

In head to head matchups, it is hard to pick against a man who could knock you out with either hand, had great ring generalship, the combination of which were a great defensive asset (let us not forget that the only man to put Spinks on his ass was Mike Tyson) which he always put to work.

My personal top 5 175 is Charles at number 1, followed by Tunney Spinks Moore in no particular order and the fifth spot for Foster. Many very honorable mentions follow...

Hearns I have in the top 5 at 154 (obviously, maybe at #1 but 154 has a very short history when compared to 175) and top 10 at 147 (not his fault... he was just too big to make 147 and fight 15 consistent rounds against top opposition) as for the other divisions he does not make the top 10 at 160, and is completely off the radar above that (well maybe at 68 he ranks, but in all honesty, who gives a damn about 68 it's less than 30yo).

The problem is everyone loved Hearns and Hagler (rightfully so, and so do I), and everyone remembers Spinks-Tyson instead of the rest of his career.

ooophh what a rant...

jabsRstiff
02-14-2012, 01:44 PM
Spinks was too big, way too powerful, too awkward, too intelligent, and just too damn good for Hagler to move up 15lbs and beat.

Very few people at the time even discussed such a match. The 168lb division came about after Hagler had been champ a while, so that wasn't even there for him to do a steady climb to 175.

Barn
02-14-2012, 01:48 PM
Well Leonard fought a great fight, but I think switching to orthodox was entirely on Hagler, but I read all those SRL interviews a long time ago so I might have missed something.

That's what I'm saying essentially, Leonard pulled off the upset spectacularly and wow'd the judges spectacularly. Credit needs to be given to him for that and I feel not enough is. It was to do with the psychological nature. Hagler wanted to beat the orthodox boxer by boxing orthodox to prove he was the better man. He also tried to counter the fact Leonard would be preparing for a southpaw. It wasn't a stupid move, more an egotistical one which you may render stupid if you want but, I wouldn't considering the circumstances. Hagler had to come in and win - or so he and everyone though. When fighting greats though things don't always work out.
Also about the negotiation thing Hagler wanted Leonard in the ring from his interviews. He just wanted to make sure the match would go through. He felt he'd lived in Leonards shadow for years and wanted to crush him. He didn't want to let the match slip due to glove size or something.



Can you reexpress yourself here? What am I basing on what? I've seen you post that Hagler was not a low IQ fighter quite a lot, and I feel it's an adjective he does not deserve.


BTW it is not that Hagler is some dumb Margarito type of fighter, just fighters like SRL or Spinks had a much higher ring IQ, but it is ok, because we are talking ATG here...

Well that's fair enough but it doesn't appear that way sometimes.

I had it a close fight.

I'm not going to dwell on it but, I can't see how it could be scored close. Every punch Hagler landed was hard and landed with venom. That couldn't be said of Vito which was the main difference maker in the fight.

I think boxing IQ is not close at all. Spinks was much better than Hearns (or Hagler for the matter) at adapting and at making the other guy fight his fight. Hearns was often dragged in his opponent's fight. To me that sums it up. Don't ge me wrong... Hearns boxed beautifully, but those I call skills not boxing IQ. If you're subtly referencing Hagler Hearns was it Hearns choosing to box or Hagler making him. (A smart move by Hagler.) Everyone is guily of getting dragged into their opponents fight though/

I find it hard to rate Spinks outside the top 5 at 175, he dominated one of the toughest LHW divisions of all time, beating everyone in it except Saad Muhammad, (who was on the way down by 82 or so), unified the belts in the process. Put a cherry on top by beating a great HW champion in Larry Holmes.
Yeah Spinks was good.

In head to head matchups, it is hard to pick against a man who could knock you out with either hand, had great ring generalship, the combination of which were a great defensive asset (let us not forget that the only man to put Spinks on his ass was Mike Tyson) which he always put to work.

I'm not saying Hagler would beat Spinks. I rate Spinks highly H2H he was very good.

My personal top 5 175 is Charles at number 1, followed by Tunney Spinks Moore in no particular order and the fifth spot for Foster. Many very honorable mentions follow...

Out of intrest where does Greb go roughly?

Hearns I have in the top 5 at 154 (obviously, maybe at #1 but 154 has a very short history when compared to 175) and top 10 at 147 (not his fault... he was just too big to make 147 and fight 15 consistent rounds against top opposition) as for the other divisions he does not make the top 10 at 160, and is completely off the radar above that (well maybe at 68 he ranks, but in all honesty, who gives a damn about 68 it's less than 30yo). Not sure Hearns is Top 10 WW. It's arguable IMO.

The problem is everyone loved Hearns and Hagler (rightfully so, and so do I), and everyone remembers Spinks-Tyson instead of the rest of his career.
I like all three fighters. I'm never said I don't like Spinks.

jabsRstiff
02-14-2012, 01:59 PM
I don't think Hagler had a low boxing IQ, but there was evidence he could over-think things going into a big fight-

He should have handled Antufermo (1st fight), Duran, and Leonard easier than he did.

Barn
02-14-2012, 02:01 PM
I don't think Hagler had a low boxing IQ, but there was evidence he could over-think things going into a big fight-

He should have handled Antufermo (1st fight), Duran, and Leonard easier than he did.
I guess I'm in a minority with my wide scores then.

147-140 Hagler for the Duran fight and 146-140 for the Antufermo fight.

I agree he can be criticized for Leonard. Although not as heavily as he does in my opinion.

jabsRstiff
02-14-2012, 02:04 PM
I guess I'm in a minority with my wide scores then.

147-140 Hagler for the Duran fight and 146-140 for the Antufermo fight.

I agree he can be criticized for Leonard. Although not as heavily as he does in my opinion.

There's no doubt he beat Vito and that he beat Duran by a wider margin than the scores indicated. But, he should have had an easier time with both in there- his game was off a bit in both and that's because something got in his head at fight time.

wmute
02-14-2012, 02:12 PM
That's what I'm saying essentially, Leonard pulled off the upset spectacularly and wow'd the judges spectacularly. Credit needs to be given to him for that and I feel not enough is. It was to do with the psychological nature. Hagler wanted to beat the orthodox boxer by boxing orthodox to prove he was the better man. He also tried to counter the fact Leonard would be preparing for a southpaw. It wasn't a stupid move, more an egotistical one which you may render stupid if you want but, I wouldn't considering the circumstances. Hagler had to come in and win - or so he and everyone though. When fighting greats though things don't always work out.
Also about the negotiation thing Hagler wanted Leonard in the ring from his interviews. He just wanted to make sure the match would go through. He felt he'd lived in Leonards shadow for years and wanted to crush him. He didn't want to let the match slip due to glove size or something.


Credit to SRL for the mind games of course!
But point is some fighters go an entire career without making those mistakes Hagler made. To me those fighters have a higher IQ then Hagler showed.


I've seen you post that Hagler was not a low IQ fighter quite a lot, and I feel it's an adjective he does not deserve.


to me he definitely had a ring IQ not matching the rest of his game. you know what I am saying?


Well that's fair enough but it doesn't appear that way sometimes.


probably cos I am still bitter at him for losing to Leonard, and I might sound that way.


I'm not going to dwell on it but, I can't see how it could be scored close. Every punch Hagler landed was hard and landed with venom. That couldn't be said of Vito which was the main difference maker in the fight.


I think I had it 9-6 but I am going on memory now. you had it like 10-5? 11-4 a bit too much no? Question is though... why did he slow down? stamina problem? Hagler? I would be very surprised


If you're subtly referencing Hagler Hearns was it Hearns choosing to box or Hagler making him. (A smart move by Hagler.) Everyone is guily of getting dragged into their opponents fight though/


That's the thing... Not everyone! see above.


Yeah Spinks was good.

yup


I'm not saying Hagler would beat Spinks. I rate Spinks highly H2H he was very good.


I know you aren't :-) you know your stuff way too much to do that.


Out of intrest where does Greb go roughly?


among those honorable mentions. I think I have him #1 at 160 Greb might make it in the top 5, but I would have to take Foster


Not sure Hearns is Top 10 WW. It's arguable IMO.


I think you are right. In terms of achievement he certainly isn't, but in H2H matchup he is IMO. Depends on what you prefer.


I like all three fighters. I'm never said I don't like Spinks.

I did not have in mind you or sugarj, and in fact most regular BH posters don't fall for that, but you have to admit there is a million ppl out there who do so.

Barn
02-14-2012, 04:07 PM
Credit to SRL for the mind games of course!
But point is some fighters go an entire career without making those mistakes Hagler made. To me those fighters have a higher IQ then Hagler showed.



to me he definitely had a ring IQ not matching the rest of his game. you know what I am saying?



probably cos I am still bitter at him for losing to Leonard, and I might sound that way.



I think I had it 9-6 but I am going on memory now. you had it like 10-5? 11-4 a bit too much no? Question is though... why did he slow down? stamina problem? Hagler? I would be very surprised



That's the thing... Not everyone! see above.


yup



I know you aren't :-) you know your stuff way too much to do that.



among those honorable mentions. I think I have him #1 at 160 Greb might make it in the top 5, but I would have to take Foster



I think you are right. In terms of achievement he certainly isn't, but in H2H matchup he is IMO. Depends on what you prefer.



I did not have in mind you or sugarj, and in fact most regular BH posters don't fall for that, but you have to admit there is a million ppl out there who do so.
Fair play all round.

wmute
02-15-2012, 03:26 AM
Fair play all round.

where do you have Greb at 160 and 175?

I forgot to say that sometimes I switch his top spot with Monzon, but then I tend to put him back. Needless to say I used Hagler as number 1 at 160, now I have him at 3.

wmute
02-15-2012, 03:30 AM
I don't think Hagler had a low boxing IQ, but there was evidence he could over-think things going into a big fight-

He should have handled Antufermo (1st fight), Duran, and Leonard easier than he did.

I like this definition